Whatever happened to all the heroes? Well judging from Die Hard 4.0 they got old, stopped cussing and threw the manky white vests in the bin, but apart from that stayed exactly the same.

For the most part, the critics seem to reckon Bruce Willis' return as John McClane is a sort of melange of the first three films, featuring every action movie cliché under the sun. What they can't seem to agree on is whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

"While the beauty of the original Die Hard was that it was basically 'cowboys and Indians in The Towering Inferno', this fourth instalment plays more like a Hits-on-45 compilation of disconnected movie clichés," writes Mark Kermode in the Observer. "It's anodyne, workmanlike fare with Underworld director Len Wiseman simply joining the dots between the explosions."

However Angie Errigo of Empire magazine reckons Die Hard 4.0's passion for "stupendous popcorn movie action" is exactly what makes it so thrilling. "It could have worked fine as a straight-faced, dark thriller," she writes, testing our credulity only slightly. "It's just more stupidly entertaining when it's played preposterously fun, with the Die Hard patented brand of flippant humour." (As an aside, is it just me or does Empire very rarely give poor reviews to blockbuster movies?)

However Tom Cox in the Daily Mail feels the new McClane is darker and more damaged than the all-American brawler of the first three films. "Rooting for McClane The American Hero was nowhere near as much fun as rooting for McClane The Baggage-Laden Bit Of Gristle," he enthuses.

What about you? Was Die Hard 4.0 too much of a good thing? Did you enjoy seeing John McClane back on screen or should Willis now follow Schwarzenegger into retirement?